|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
From Irans perspective, getting nukes might be the rational move. Religion might not even play a role.
Any government that doesn‘t want the ‚west‘ to influence their business gets their hands on nukes whenever they get the chance.
Sure. Religion is part of the government in Iran but it‘s not the only reason it would want nukes.
On June 19 2025 05:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 05:38 Vivax wrote:
Stopping nuclear proliferation should be a no-brainer. I don‘t know if a bunch of nuclear scientists had to die for that but it‘s sort of reasonable to assume the attacking party was sure it would be necessary ? They incur a risk for what they do.
That‘s how much I can know from the reported.
Israel would have good reasons if the news are true because as it is in Ukraine, international aid isn‘t easily possible against an aggressor with icbms. The core problem with stopping nuclear proliferation is that we gave such good reasons to get nukes to basically everyone. The Ukraine war shows that you are not save without being protected by some sort of nuke, and North Korea shows that if you have a nuke, people are a lot more willing to accept whatever bullshit you are doing. If you are a dictatorship, don't want the US to invade you, or if you are neighbouring a dictatorship and are not in Nato, getting a nuke sounds like a very, very good idea. We could have prevented that. But we didn't. So now getting a nuke is kinda risky, but also basically the only way to have long-term sovereignity.
Ukraine could get icbms stationed in it that are technically owned by other nations. It‘s how it works in the rest of Europe too.
Russia knows it and still prefers to take the risk of such an escalation for some reason. Maybe because Ukraine is among the closest said nukes can be stationed in, to them.
|
Apparently, the plan is ready, but Trump is still waiting for final order. WSJ
|
United States15579 Posts
As much as I hate the guy, I gotta hand it to him for being as restrained as he has been. He appears to be giving Iran every possible opportunity to not do this the hard way.
As I understand the situation, we can't rely on the usual "let the UN hold 5 years of meetings first". But I do hope Khameini realizes he isn't getting what he wants and gives up on it.
|
Nothing about this situation indicates restraint lol
|
On June 19 2025 05:35 WombaT wrote:
As an aside it’s a gap in my reading, probably should redress it. I was always curious why they didn’t just topple Saddam in the first Gulf War? He’s been gassing people, invading other countries, you’ve crushed his military pretty easily. Seems a great bloody time to do it. Were they worried about well, what we subsequently saw when he was toppled, or some other factors?
America still had a vivid memory of Vietnam during the first Gulf War. 20 year olds in 1973 (end of US involvement in Vietnam War) were in their late 30s during the Gulf War. Their parents who were 40-50 at the end of Vietnam would be 60-70 during the Gulf War. People saw how destructive the Vietnam War was to the social fabric at home. They saw how harmful it was to the veterans who went to war. They knew people whose sons didn't come home. Those 40-70 year olds are a huge voting block and also a large part of congress. The memory was still too close and nobody wanted a repeat, so we pushed Hussein out of Kuwait and called it a day fearing a protracted guerilla war. Unfortunately, memory fades and a new generation that doesn't know the horrors of war will eventually take over and the cycle will repeat.
On nation building. I think if you want to nation build, you need a 50 year plan, not 20. We saw what happened at the end of 20 years in Afghanistan. All the young Taliban men and leaders who went into hiding came back as grizzled veterans 20 years later. A 40 year old who's been at war for 20 years is a scary man and it's a bunch of guys like that who could sweep through a poorly trained new army (and did). If we had the discipline to stick to it for 50 years, the few Taliban who survive that long come out of hiding as 70 year olds... not nearly as intimidating.
I don't think the US has the discipline to nation build in Iran for 50 years. So I think that one should be completely out.
We could try for a revolution. Don't nation build, just take out the leaders (and/or the secret police) and hope for the best. Iran is probably better situated to have a good outcome than others, but good outcomes in those situations seem to be extremely rare. I don't trust Trump to properly lead the world in the aftermath and so hope we don't try this one either, but would be more open to it with a better leader in the White House.
Hitting the nuke sites seems reasonable. Recent history has taught us that, yes, every nation should try to get nukes for their own self interest. No, we should not let our enemies have them. We have the power to stop them and should. Try to re-train everyone's thinking on nukes. Make it so that attempting to obtain nukes = destruction. Not pursuing nukes = peace. It would go against what has happened in the last 25+ years, but it has to change at some point if we want a better world. It's something we should have done all along, but now is the best time we still have to start.
|
United States15579 Posts
On June 19 2025 07:17 Zambrah wrote:
Nothing about this situation indicates restraint lol
Depends on the assumptions you're working with. If we assume the IAEA is accurate, and we assume its not ok for Iran to have nukes, there does not appear to be a way to be more restrained while also preventing Khameini from getting the nuke he wants.
|
On June 19 2025 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 07:17 Zambrah wrote:
Nothing about this situation indicates restraint lol Depends on the assumptions you're working with. If we assume the IAEA is accurate, and we assume its not ok for Iran to have nukes, there does not appear to be a way to be more restrained while also preventing Khameini from getting the nuke he wants.
What is the IAEA accurate about, the only reporting Ive seen on this is that there isnt really any proof offered that Iran was making nuclear weapons
|
On June 19 2025 07:29 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 05:35 WombaT wrote:
As an aside it’s a gap in my reading, probably should redress it. I was always curious why they didn’t just topple Saddam in the first Gulf War? He’s been gassing people, invading other countries, you’ve crushed his military pretty easily. Seems a great bloody time to do it. Were they worried about well, what we subsequently saw when he was toppled, or some other factors? + Show Spoiler +America still had a vivid memory of Vietnam during the first Gulf War. 20 year olds in 1973 (end of US involvement in Vietnam War) were in their late 30s during the Gulf War. Their parents who were 40-50 at the end of Vietnam would be 60-70 during the Gulf War. People saw how destructive the Vietnam War was to the social fabric at home. They saw how harmful it was to the veterans who went to war. They knew people whose sons didn't come home. Those 40-70 year olds are a huge voting block and also a large part of congress. The memory was still too close and nobody wanted a repeat, so we pushed Hussein out of Kuwait and called it a day fearing a protracted guerilla war. Unfortunately, memory fades and a new generation that doesn't know the horrors of war will eventually take over and the cycle will repeat.
On nation building. I think if you want to nation build, you need a 50 year plan, not 20. We saw what happened at the end of 20 years in Afghanistan. All the young Taliban men and leaders who went into hiding came back as grizzled veterans 20 years later. A 40 year old who's been at war for 20 years is a scary man and it's a bunch of guys like that who could sweep through a poorly trained new army (and did). If we had the discipline to stick to it for 50 years, the few Taliban who survive that long come out of hiding as 70 year olds... not nearly as intimidating.
I don't think the US has the discipline to nation build in Iran for 50 years. So I think that one should be completely out. We could try for a revolution. Don't nation build, just take out the leaders (and/or the secret police) and hope for the best. + Show Spoiler +Iran is probably better situated to have a good outcome than others, but good outcomes in those situations seem to be extremely rare. I don't trust Trump to properly lead the world in the aftermath and so hope we don't try this one either, but would be more open to it with a better leader in the White House.
Hitting the nuke sites seems reasonable. Recent history has taught us that, yes, every nation should try to get nukes for their own self interest. No, we should not let our enemies have them. We have the power to stop them and should. Try to re-train everyone's thinking on nukes. Make it so that attempting to obtain nukes = destruction. Not pursuing nukes = peace. It would go against what has happened in the last 25+ years, but it has to change at some point if we want a better world. It's something we should have done all along, but now is the best time we still have to start.
What if China, with Canada's and/or Mexico's help, did this to Trump and his cronies?
|
On June 19 2025 06:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (11) 55% Yes (9) 45% 20 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though. I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that. Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. Japan and Germany got pounded into the bloody dust. Perhaps they needed to be, to be receptive as a population to other ways of doing things subsequently.
So did Poland (or Native Americans for that matter), did we also needed it?
|
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On June 19 2025 08:02 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 06:26 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (11) 55% Yes (9) 45% 20 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though. I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that. Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. Japan and Germany got pounded into the bloody dust. Perhaps they needed to be, to be receptive as a population to other ways of doing things subsequently. So did Poland (or Native Americans for that matter), did we also needed it?
I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags.
I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside.
Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways:
1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’
2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better.
What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance.
|
United States15579 Posts
On June 19 2025 07:41 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 07:17 Zambrah wrote:
Nothing about this situation indicates restraint lol Depends on the assumptions you're working with. If we assume the IAEA is accurate, and we assume its not ok for Iran to have nukes, there does not appear to be a way to be more restrained while also preventing Khameini from getting the nuke he wants. What is the IAEA accurate about, the only reporting Ive seen on this is that there isnt really any proof offered that Iran was making nuclear weapons
Here is the IAEA report indicating Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity has surpassed 400 kilograms. Additionally, IAEA inspectors have previously detected uranium particles enriched to near-weapons-grade levels of 83.7% at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf
Uranium can be used for many things. High purity is necessary for a nuclear weapon. Low purity is able to be used for non-explosive purposes. The levels of enrichment in Iran are inconsistent with their stated objectives.
Micronesia, if you see this, perhaps you would be willing to provide more specific details as to how enrichment can be used to determine what someone intends to use the uranium for.
|
On June 19 2025 08:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 08:02 Razyda wrote:On June 19 2025 06:26 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (11) 55% Yes (9) 45% 20 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though. I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that. Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. Japan and Germany got pounded into the bloody dust. Perhaps they needed to be, to be receptive as a population to other ways of doing things subsequently. So did Poland (or Native Americans for that matter), did we also needed it? I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags. I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways: 1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’ 2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance.
"I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags." what they had in common with Iran and various other countries though, was the fact that there was dude with better army, who decided to impose his values on the other country.
"I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. " - you cant. If you try, you will antagonise population and receive pushback. As it happens people tend to be attached to the nation/culture and are way more willing to take shit from members of this nation/culture than from outsiders.
"Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways:
1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’
2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. "
1 - Iraq and Afghanistan
2 - Former Warsaw Pact
"What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance. "
What Mohdoo is proposing is basically bomb the shit out of them and leave it at that.
|
On June 19 2025 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 07:29 RenSC2 wrote:On June 19 2025 05:35 WombaT wrote:
As an aside it’s a gap in my reading, probably should redress it. I was always curious why they didn’t just topple Saddam in the first Gulf War? He’s been gassing people, invading other countries, you’ve crushed his military pretty easily. Seems a great bloody time to do it. Were they worried about well, what we subsequently saw when he was toppled, or some other factors? + Show Spoiler +America still had a vivid memory of Vietnam during the first Gulf War. 20 year olds in 1973 (end of US involvement in Vietnam War) were in their late 30s during the Gulf War. Their parents who were 40-50 at the end of Vietnam would be 60-70 during the Gulf War. People saw how destructive the Vietnam War was to the social fabric at home. They saw how harmful it was to the veterans who went to war. They knew people whose sons didn't come home. Those 40-70 year olds are a huge voting block and also a large part of congress. The memory was still too close and nobody wanted a repeat, so we pushed Hussein out of Kuwait and called it a day fearing a protracted guerilla war. Unfortunately, memory fades and a new generation that doesn't know the horrors of war will eventually take over and the cycle will repeat.
On nation building. I think if you want to nation build, you need a 50 year plan, not 20. We saw what happened at the end of 20 years in Afghanistan. All the young Taliban men and leaders who went into hiding came back as grizzled veterans 20 years later. A 40 year old who's been at war for 20 years is a scary man and it's a bunch of guys like that who could sweep through a poorly trained new army (and did). If we had the discipline to stick to it for 50 years, the few Taliban who survive that long come out of hiding as 70 year olds... not nearly as intimidating.
I don't think the US has the discipline to nation build in Iran for 50 years. So I think that one should be completely out. We could try for a revolution. Don't nation build, just take out the leaders (and/or the secret police) and hope for the best. + Show Spoiler +Iran is probably better situated to have a good outcome than others, but good outcomes in those situations seem to be extremely rare. I don't trust Trump to properly lead the world in the aftermath and so hope we don't try this one either, but would be more open to it with a better leader in the White House.
Hitting the nuke sites seems reasonable. Recent history has taught us that, yes, every nation should try to get nukes for their own self interest. No, we should not let our enemies have them. We have the power to stop them and should. Try to re-train everyone's thinking on nukes. Make it so that attempting to obtain nukes = destruction. Not pursuing nukes = peace. It would go against what has happened in the last 25+ years, but it has to change at some point if we want a better world. It's something we should have done all along, but now is the best time we still have to start. What if China, with Canada's and/or Mexico's help, did this to Trump and his cronies?
Reason A not to - Why would they do that when they've already got you leading the revolution?
Reason B not to - wait less than 4 years and Trump's term ends. Yay for democracy with term limits. If his term doesn't end at that time, it's America's problem and there will be some major internal problems where a geopolitical opponent could step in at a much more favorable time.
Reason C not to - FAFO. Certainly if we did it to Iran, they'd have a contingent that would want revenge and their ability to get revenge should be factored in to any calculus.
If someone tried it on Trump, it's not like I'd shed a tear for Trump if it happened. I'd just recommend thinking about the consequences before doing it and I don't think Trump, in charge of the most powerful military in the world, would just take it and not hit back 100x as hard. So that's a pretty big reason not to.
Even still, people have tried. Saddam Hussein did try to assassinate GHW Bush due to the US involvement in the Gulf War. He may have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling kid.
|
United States15579 Posts
On June 19 2025 09:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 08:50 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 08:02 Razyda wrote:On June 19 2025 06:26 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 19 2025 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (11) 55% Yes (9) 45% 20 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though. I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that. Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed. You're hit or miss on your political takes. This is straight up insane and you should reevaluate. The reason why people aren't excited about the prospect of Iran blowing up is that we remember Iraq, which was actually a disaster, not something you want to replicate. I mean, there are valid reasons to want to stop Iran from attaining weapons grade uranium, but much like Iraq, I feel like the proof of actual WMD is a bit lacking. Not as invented as the Iraq situation though, and Israel is significantly more in the right in terms of considering Iran a potential existential threat than the US or UK were regarding Iraq. So - if we're looking at this confict from a 'casus belli' perspective, we're looking at a much more legitimate situation than what we had in Iraq. But that doesn't mean there's any reason to be hopeful about the prospect of a power vacuum in Iran. Saddam was a genocidal dictator who also had invaded a neighbor country- but even in that case, ousting him is generally considered one of the biggest geopolitical disasters since the end of the cold war. Iran has twice the population of Iraq. Destabilizing the country without a plan for the future is certainly not something to celebrate.. It sounds like we are operating under different assumptions. Are you assuming the IAEA assessment is inaccurate and/or fabricated? I will let micronesia correct me if I am wrong here: even if we accept there are non-explosive purposes for >4% purity, 60% is way too high for someone to argue in good faith Iran is not pursuing nuclear bombs. Regarding Khameini and his jihad rednecks: I will once again reiterate Germany and Japan both surrendered when their goose was cooked and they are doing just fine today. I think it is VERY worth remembering the right thing for Khameini to do right now is just surrender on the whole nuclear shpeal, allow themselves to be disarmed, and then work on a transition to another government themselves. It is bad faith to pretend this isn't the reasonable and logical answer right now. It is not acceptable for Khameini to pout and force everyone else's hand. He lost Tehran's airspace. Goose is cooked. GG. "Yes but Khameini declined, so now Israel and the US need to just leave" isn't reasonable either. Israel and the US will continue to force the issue in the absence of a common sense, historically used solution. Germany and Japan. Both ok. Iran can just be the same thing. What happens after they refuse is not reasonable to entirely blame on the other side. There's nothing noble about going down with the ship. Japan and Germany got pounded into the bloody dust. Perhaps they needed to be, to be receptive as a population to other ways of doing things subsequently. So did Poland (or Native Americans for that matter), did we also needed it? I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags. I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways: 1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’ 2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance. "I’m not a history buff but last I checked mid-20th century Poland or various Native American peoples weren’t aggressive, overly nationalistic shitbags." what they had in common with Iran and various other countries though, was the fact that there was dude with better army, who decided to impose his values on the other country. "I am talking specifically in the context where a nation is, a big chunk of its population is fine with that, and how one can change that from the outside. " - you cant. If you try, you will antagonise population and receive pushback. As it happens people tend to be attached to the nation/culture and are way more willing to take shit from members of this nation/culture than from outsiders. "Maybe some folks have some counter-examples, I don’t have many to hand. Generally it seems to go both one of two ways: 1. The proverbial shit hits the fan, the offender gets crushed so thoroughly, at such a great cost that folks go ‘we better not try that again anytime soon.’ 2. Maybe there’s various forms of power, hard and soft exerted, but ultimately you leave it until things within the state are changed from within, hopefully for the better. " 1 - Iraq and Afghanistan 2 - Former Warsaw Pact "What Mohdoo appears to be proposing is some kind of enforced regime change, but it’s potentially in this hypothetical Israel doing it. Not a super popular nation amongst many Iranians. Something bound to cause a shitload of resentment, even amongst those who desire some kind of new governance. " What Mohdoo is proposing is basically bomb the shit out of them and leave it at that.
Small correction: bomb the shit out of *their ability to create a nuclear weapon and the people in the current Iranian government who were instrumental in that pursuit. They can keep everything else. The only stuff that matters to me is their nuclear weapon project. I see no reason to give half a shit about Iran or anything they do in the absence of their nuclear program.
|
United States24660 Posts
On June 19 2025 08:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Micronesia, if you see this, perhaps you would be willing to provide more specific details as to how enrichment can be used to determine what someone intends to use the uranium for.
Here are a few thoughts.
Most non-military uranium use is <20% enriched in U-235 (so Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) or High-Assay LEU (HALEU)). Per Wikipedia, fissile uranium in nuclear weapon primary components usually is 85+ percent enriched.
HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors, naval reactors, and production of certain medical isotopes (e.g., Mo-99 and Tc-99m per Wikipedia).
Based on my limited knowledge, the main reasons why a country would enrich above 20% would be either for experimental "fast' reactor designs (not likely for a new-to-the-game country), development of American-style nuclear propulsion (not likely for Iran), or attempted development of explosive nuclear weapons.
Of note, enrichment does not get more difficult as the enrichment percentage gets higher. See the two graphs halfway down the page, after which this paragraph follows (emphasis mine): https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment
The first graph shows enrichment effort (SWU) per unit of product. The second shows how one tonne of natural uranium feed might end up: as 120-130 kg of uranium for power reactor fuel, as 26 kg of typical research reactor fuel, or conceivably as 5.6 kg of weapons-grade material. The curve flattens out so much because the mass of material being enriched progressively diminishes to these amounts, from the original one tonne, so requires less effort relative to what has already been applied to progress a lot further in percentage enrichment. The relatively small increment of effort needed to achieve the increase from normal levels is the reason why enrichment plants are considered a sensitive technology in relation to preventing weapons proliferation, and are very tightly supervised under international agreements. Where this safeguards supervision is compromised or obstructed, as in Iran, concerns arise.
There wouldn't be much reason to be shifty about sharing all enrichment progress if the goal was to work on fast neutron reactors, naval reactors, or medical isotope production...
|
United States15579 Posts
On June 19 2025 09:21 micronesia wrote:
There wouldn't be much reason to be shifty about sharing all enrichment progress if the goal was to work on fast neutron reactors, naval reactors, or medical isotope production...
One other small thing that makes this feel extremely cut and dry, but please correct me if I am wrong: There are no signs of these other things being done. So if they aren't making those things, and yet they are refining way higher than 20%, there's really nothing else, right?
|
United States24660 Posts
The 12 June IAEA Resolution makes it clear that IAEA has found evidence of non-compliant behavior, and Iran has not made a good-faith effort to rectify the situation despite being given every opportunity.
However, the 13 June IAEA Statement makes it clear that IAEA does not agree with current military strikes on relevant facilities as appropriate.
|
On June 19 2025 08:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 07:41 Zambrah wrote:On June 19 2025 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:On June 19 2025 07:17 Zambrah wrote:
Nothing about this situation indicates restraint lol Depends on the assumptions you're working with. If we assume the IAEA is accurate, and we assume its not ok for Iran to have nukes, there does not appear to be a way to be more restrained while also preventing Khameini from getting the nuke he wants. What is the IAEA accurate about, the only reporting Ive seen on this is that there isnt really any proof offered that Iran was making nuclear weapons Here is the IAEA report indicating Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity has surpassed 400 kilograms. Additionally, IAEA inspectors have previously detected uranium particles enriched to near-weapons-grade levels of 83.7% at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdfUranium can be used for many things. High purity is necessary for a nuclear weapon. Low purity is able to be used for non-explosive purposes. The levels of enrichment in Iran are inconsistent with their stated objectives. Micronesia, if you see this, perhaps you would be willing to provide more specific details as to how enrichment can be used to determine what someone intends to use the uranium for.
That report looks like it mostly indicates that they cant trust that Iran doesnt maybe have nuclear missile related things because theyre not monitoring everything anymore, I cant really say that I find this evidence nearly strong enough to warrant the current Israel/US action.
I dont even doubt that Iran wants to make a nuclear arsenal, we're seeing what happens to you when you dont have nuclear weapons, its a very fair want for any nation that wants to maintain the ability to repel countries from randomly going "your land? No no, my land," but Im not seeing any trustworthy source saying, "guys we have concrete information they were days or small-number-of-weeks away from a nuclear weapon," and what I do have is a memory of all of the horrible shit the western and western-allied countries do to that part of the world and the arcane half-assed explanations they pull to justify it.
Again, I can't say that I find the actions taken against Iran are at all restrained given what I understand about the evidence.
|
Bathing in the blood of the innocent keeps backfiring on us, not to mention what it does to the innocent. Could we try a different strategy this time?
|
On June 19 2025 10:16 Severedevil wrote:
Bathing in the blood of the innocent keeps backfiring on us, not to mention what it does to the innocent. Could we try a different strategy this time?
Incidentally this is also 100% applicable to supply-side economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
